A recent decision by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has attracted the attention of jurists and companies because it reinforces the thesis of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) that the jurisdiction to analyze the validity of contracts, including self-employed contracts, lies with the Common State Court. In the lawsuit filed with the 2nd Labor Court, the plaintiff asked for recognition of her employment relationship, claiming that there had been fraud in hiring her as a freelancer.
What’s more, some Labor Judges do not consider themselves competent to judge actions on the validity of freelance contracts, and there is an internal discussion on this subject in the labor sphere. However, the Civil Court argues that, since Constitutional Amendment 45/04, the Labor Court has jurisdiction to hear actions for compensation for moral and property damages arising from accidents at work.
Initially, it is important to clarify that a conflict of jurisdiction arises when two or more judges disagree on who should judge a case or disagree on whether to join or separate cases. In this case, it must be referred to a higher body, which will decide who is responsible for the case.
In the case in question, labor judge Thereza Christina Nahas decided that she did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, following the case law of the STF. However, when it received the case, the Common Court of Justice also decided that it did not have jurisdiction to resolve the claim.
The case was then referred to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) for a final decision. Justice Nancy Andrigh decided that the Common Court of Justice is competent to prosecute and judge compensation actions aimed at invalidating freelance contracts, even if it recognizes an employment relationship. According to the judge, this requires a preliminary analysis of the allegation of fraud in the contract, which must be carried out in the state court. If it is confirmed and the validity of the freelance contract is ruled out, then the case can be taken to the Labor Court.
Traditionally, lawsuits seeking recognition of an employment relationship are heard by the Labor Court. However, the invalidity of legal transactions depends on the fulfillment and characterization of certain requirements, without which the original contract must be preserved to guarantee legal certainty, as established by the STF.
The current scenario is one of disagreement between the Federal Supreme Court and the Labor Courts over jurisdiction to analyze lawsuits involving freelance contracts, service contracts (outsourcing) and other types of employment contracts. STF Justices have overturned decisions by the Labor Courts that recognize the employment relationship in these situations.
If the STF’s position stands, it will certainly bring more legal certainty to companies, since service contracts entered into without an actual employment relationship between the contractor and the contracting party will not run the risk of being declared null and void by the Labor Courts without prior analysis by the competent court.
Each case must be analyzed individually to guarantee the rights of the parties and the proper application of the law, especially with regard to articles 2 and 3 of the CLT, which establish the requirements for characterizing an employment relationship.
If you have any questions, our labor team is at your disposal.
